Naked and Unashamed

[gadfly]

This is an exegetical topic, not necessarily a theological or dogmatic one. That is, this is about an interpretation of meaning in a phrase in the Bible.

Prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit, the human author says that Adam and Eve were "naked and unashamed"; after eating the fruit, they discover their nudity and are ashamed.

There is a long tradition of interpretation (starting at least from Augustine) that infers from this that nudity originally was a good thing, and that the author of Genesis was praising it as an ideal state.

I find this interpretation highly unlikely when I read it against an ancient semitic background. No ancient Hebrew or Jew (same thing, different times) would read the words "naked" and think "ah, the good old days when we could run around in the buck". Nudity was embarrassing, and I propose the author of Genesis did NOT intend the description to indicate an ideal state. I propose the author wished his readers to expect DEVELOPMENT. That is, the reader would read the phrase and think, "Wait, theyre naked! So surely they will be clothed soon!"

So why were they naked and UNASHAMED? Because the author wished to present them as if they were children (children do not feel ashamed while naked) who still needed to grow up.

Question: well simply interact with the above points....

[theophile]

This is an exegetical topic, not necessarily a theological or dogmatic one. That is, this is about an interpretation of meaning in a phrase in the Bible.

Prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit, the human author says that Adam and Eve were "naked and unashamed"; after eating the fruit, they discover their nudity and are ashamed.

There is a long tradition of interpretation (starting at least from Augustine) that infers from this that nudity originally was a good thing, and that the author of Genesis was praising it as an ideal state.

I find this interpretation highly unlikely when I read it against an ancient semitic background. No ancient Hebrew or Jew (same thing, different times) would read the words "naked" and think "ah, the good old days when we could run around in the buck". Nudity was embarrassing, and I propose the author of Genesis did NOT intend the description to indicate an ideal state. I propose the author wished his readers to expect DEVELOPMENT. That is, the reader would read the phrase and think, "Wait, theyre naked! So surely they will be clothed soon!"

So why were they naked and UNASHAMED? Because the author wished to present them as if they were children (children do not feel ashamed while naked) who still needed to grow up.

Question: well simply interact with the above points....

The idea that there is something shameful about nakedness implies there is something bad about our natural state. But didn't God just declare creation good in the previous chapter? So what gives?

That said, nudity is a highly fascinating and under-appreciated concept in the bible. Even in Gen 2-3 alone. For instance, consider the very next verse (Gen 3:1) where we have the introduction of the serpent. It is described as the most aram (often translated as crafty or shrewd) of wild creatures. This is a clear wordplay with naked (arom) in the previous verse that the original reader / listener would have picked up on but is now lost in our translations.

In other words, we are invited by this wordplay in the original Hebrew to connect the arom (nakedness) of Adam and Eve with the aram (shrewdness) of the serpent. Even to read the serpent as the most naked of wild creatures (which makes sense, not only because serpents go so far as to shed their own skin, but because the serpent is the only wild creature in the story that overcomes its natural fear of being naked to come out of hiding).

To go even further on the aram of the serpent, this word is ambiguous in itself, and can span negative and positive connotations. By which I mean it can imply deviousness (shrewd, crafty, cunning, etc.), which is often used here based on the assumption the serpent is up to something, but can also be more positive in its meaning, i.e., sensible, wise, etc. In fact, aram is more often translated in positive terms in the bible versus the negative connotation applied to the serpent based on suspicion alone.

Hence, back to the original point, the aram/arom of the serpent is more likely a good thing. While it led to disaster in Gen 3, the fact that the serpent came out into the open to commune with Eve while all the other wild creatures stay hidden was desirable. So too our own nakedness, or the exposure / vulnerability that true communion requires.

[JehovahsWitness]

So why were they naked and UNASHAMED?

Before their sin, Adam and Eve had no reason to be ashamed of their naked bodies. When they sinned Adam and Eve's guilt about what they had done translated into a distorted view about their own bodies. They couldn't bear to look at themselves, not because the appearance of their bodies had changed but because of a psychological shift that resulted in a change in how they felt about their bodies.


JEHOVAHS WITNESS










RELATED POSTS

Did eating the fruit from the tree affect Adam and Eve's thinking?
viewtopic.php?p=1027919#p1027919

Why did Adam and Eve feel guilty after eating from the Tree?
viewtopic.php?p=1089609#p1089609

Why did Adam and Eve become ashamed of their nudity?
viewtopic.php?p=997976#p997976

Whose fault was it Adam and Eve grew ashamed of their own naked bodies?
viewtopic.php?p=1019568#p1019568

Did God plant poisonous plants in the garden of Eden?
viewtopic.php?p=1005027#p1005027

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX , NUDITY and ... THE ORIGINAL SIN

[theophile]

So why were they naked and UNASHAMED?

Before their sin, Adam and Eve had no reason to be ashamed of their naked bodies. When they sinned Adam and Eve's guilt about what they had done translated into a distorted view about their own bodies. They couldn't bear to look at themselves, not because the appearance of their bodies had changed but because of a psychological shift that resulted in a change in how they felt about their bodies.

None of what you say is in the text per se. What the text says is that they REALIZED they were naked. So does this realization involve distortion? Feels like a funny word to use if what you say is true. Seems more like they now just know they are naked, full stop. Not that they now have a distorted view of their bodies as well.

One question would be, though, what nakedness here encompasses. Just physical nakedness? Does it include laying bare what they've done as well? Or what they are thinking / feeling? ... I would use the term in as broad a sense as possible, encompassing more than just physical nakedness, and say that their implied shame here is less about their bodies and more about what they've done, and not wanting to expose that to God.

Their view of their bodies remains the same. They just realize, like with their shameful act, the vulnerability that comes with physical exposure as well.

[JehovahsWitness]

So why were they naked and UNASHAMED?

Before their sin, Adam and Eve had no reason to be ashamed of their naked bodies. When they sinned Adam and Eve's guilt about what they had done translated into a distorted view about their own bodies. They couldn't bear to look at themselves, not because the appearance of their bodies had changed but because of a psychological shift that resulted in a change in how they felt about their bodies.

None of what you say is in the text per se.

So is anything YOU said in the text per se? How much less a naked snake! Your wordplay theory is one way to interpret scripture and my reasoning in the content is another. We will agree to disagree.

Have an excellent day,

[theophile]

So why were they naked and UNASHAMED?

Before their sin, Adam and Eve had no reason to be ashamed of their naked bodies. When they sinned Adam and Eve's guilt about what they had done translated into a distorted view about their own bodies. They couldn't bear to look at themselves, not because the appearance of their bodies had changed but because of a psychological shift that resulted in a change in how they felt about their bodies.

None of what you say is in the text per se.

So is anything YOU said in the text per se? How much less a naked snake! Your wordplay theory is one way to interpret scripture and my reasoning in the content is another. We will agree to disagree.

Have an excellent day,

The wordplay is in the text. The realization of nakedness is in the text. The fear (versus shame) of being naked is in the text, and explicitly cited as what caused Adam and Eve to cover up and hide. Our posts seem to respectively agree that what they should be ashamed of, if anything, is what they did. Not of their bodies...

We should fill in the blanks in the simplest way possible. Jumping to a "distorted view of our bodies" is a much bigger leap than any leap I made, and there's no explanation I can see for this distortion. i.e., Why would they psychologically transfer shame over what they did to shame over their bodies / appearance? Does anywhere else in scripture reinforce your view? i.e., Where this distorted view of the human body as shameful is expressed?

We are called dust and ashes and small / insignificant, but I don't think that's a distorted view or something to be ashamed of. (Although you could argue, and I would agree, that there is a distortion that happens here insofar as humans become ashamed of this accurate view of what we are, even though we shouldn't...)

I think our biggest disagreement, frankly, is probably around the serpent and its role in the text. I see it as a good creature since that's what God called all of creation, the serpent included, in Genesis 1. You, I suspect, would say there is another unmentioned distortion happening between Genesis 1 and 3 when the serpent is introduced that somehow makes it nefarious in its intent.

[JehovahsWitness]

The wordplay is in the text.

play-theatre-audience obviously Adam and Eve were aspiring actors. Wordplay like shapes in the clouds can be found in with intent and a good dose of imagination. As I said, your theory has been duly noted, unless you are the Pope or Jesus Christ himself, you are just proposing a theory, I find it uncompelling.

I take a more realistic and fact based approach since guilt (whether justified or not) is often manifested in psychological phenomena . Adam and Eve were clearly humans, there is therefore good reason to think they reacted as humans have done since time in time immemorial. The text explicitly stated they realized they were naked (not that they were cold or that the bees were biting their skin...) so their eating from the fruit changed the way they felt about their bodies (as opposed to how their bodies felt. They attempted to alleviate or remedy that feeling by covering their bodies and hiding themselves from the their God.

If a man realizes he is tall and gets on with his life then it would be fair to assume he has no negative feelings about it. If he tries to chop off his legs then his tallness was obviously problematic for him.

Adam and Eve tried to cover over their nakedness, it was obviously then a realization that was problematic for them. At the very least then there is a temporal link between what they had done (eat the forbidden fruit), how they felt about their bodies (that the bodies should be covered, not be viewed, even by each other).

It is a provable, scientific fact that humans are psychological beings that are deeply effected by what we do or what is done to us. Their "fear" was not of cancer from the sun or hypothermia from being unclothed in the open, their fear was a negative emotional response to what they had done, we call that "guilt" . Interestingly, Adam claimed he hid "because [he was ] naked" but they had already covered their nakedness (and obviously God had already seen them naked, and lived to tell the tale) so they were not hiding their bodies from God, they feared retribution because he knew he had done something wrong. We call the negative feeling when we know we have done something wrong ... guilt. And when we hide what we know will be viewed as bad or detrimental we call that ... shame. And, as I said earlier, guilt (and shame) can often have profound effects on how people feel about their bodies. Still, there is no need to labor the point the text is open to interpretation so the dogmatic need not apply.

Body dysmorphia
A person with body dysmorphia has a distorted view of their body, and may feel shame or anxiety about their appearance. They may believe they have a flaw that others can't see, and may feel the need to "fix" it. Body dysmorphia is an anxiety disorder ...

For more details please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ...THE GARDEN OF EDEN

[theophile]

The text explicitly stated they realized they were naked (not that they were cold or that the bees were biting their skin...) so their eating from the fruit changed the way they felt about their bodies (as opposed to how their bodies felt. They attempted to alleviate or remedy that feeling by covering their bodies and hiding themselves from the their God.

Again, realizing nakedness does not necessitate a change in feeling about one's body. It just means now knowing that one's body is exposed. That it is naked.

i.e., they may have felt ashamed or proud of their bodies before the realization of nakedness, and neither of these feelings would have any reason to change with it. They would still feel the same shame or pride. They would just now know on-top that what they are ashamed or proud of is exposed. That their shameful bits are open to judgment and their proud bits may be noticed by covetous eyes... (Just as they saw, coveted, and took God's fruit in the previous scene...)

The only change in feeling that Adam and Eve have here is the feeling of fear. Realizing the exposure that comes with nakedness is sufficient cause for them feeling this fear, and is explicitly stated as the reason for it. i.e., "we were afraid, because we were naked..." There need not be any change in feeling toward their actual bodies to explain any of this.

I think this is a difference that matters since it means there is no distorted view of the body at play here. Rather there is the question of nakedness / exposure, the fear that this causes, and what we do about this fear. Do we cover up or run and hide (from God) per Adam and Eve? Which to me is the essence of sin? Or do we stay out in the open, actively sharing what we are / have with the world?

(This may put us squarely at odds again, since I assume you'd locate the essence of sin in disobedience of God's rule... I don't think that's necessarily sin, as some degree of disobedience is called for (see Jacob for example, who is praised for "wrestling" with God). Sin is more properly when we put distance / barriers between ourselves and God because of this fear; when we hold ourselves back from that union and show our lack of trust / faith in it (taking cover behind a rock for instance, instead of with God). In other words, sinful disobedience is just a byproduct of the deeper disunion rooted in the fear of being naked / the fear of God, and how we respond to this fear...)

[gadfly]

[Replying to theophile in post #2]

Hmmm....

Is that what you think the human author was getting at? I highly doubt that was the human authorial intent. I cannot imagine an ancient Jew or ancient Jewish editors agreeing with you.

I think it's important to read all literature from an educated point of view that takes into account an educated view of the historical context

I know many disagree and think that the bible is somehow magically different and can be read in any language by anyone and immediately yield a precise and unambiguous meaning, but I am not one of those.

[gadfly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #3]

Interesting.....I am skeptical however. You had to write several paragraphs to explain a few sentences. Do you really think the original hearers of this passage thought all the things you are suggesting? They were ancient Jews.